Why All The Winning?

A week off and we content generators must occupy our minds with something.

The trend I am responding to is the one where everyone has a go at deciding why the Canadiens, so bad a week ago, suddenly veered to victory 3 times in a row to restore the hopes and dreams of millions.

Yesterday, I read a few accounts in which the authors’ insight was that Habs won more games because they didn’t lose. Wait that’s unfair, they actually did go a step further than that – that the team won because they scored more goals than the other team.

Today, Sean Gordon “drills down” on the Habs winning streak. In looking in all the familiar places a few hundred yards off shore, he claimed to turn up sand, not oil. As for drilling deeper, it seems he’d rather assume it’d only turn up sea water. Outside the metaphor, he decided to call it luck or law of averages or whatever you like, after he’d checked the shots, blocked shots and PP numbers.

It’s a fair point and one that I see more and more people subscribing to. Basically, as Sean puts it:

The margin between winning and losing for a team like the Habs (or the Bruins, Sabres, Leafs and even Capitals and Penguins) has become unimaginably narrow.

His explanation that small things make the difference ultimately.

Both theories, Sean's and that of those who distill to the only cold hard facts there are imply that the Canadiens fate is at least in some part out of their own control. The notion that what will happen will happen due to so many factors, it hardly bears thinking about.

What this leads me to is the question: "Is the exercise of playing 100 games with all of us watching really just an elaborate exercise in coin flipping?" Provided the coins (teams) are relatively balanced (sorry Florida most years), are the outcomes really just hinged on whether someone’s skate happens to deflect a puck an inch inside or outside the post?

My feeling is that it is not. I may well be deluding myself.

Teams wouldn’t bother to hire scouts, coaches and all the rest of the entourage if it were thus. Surely if we can admit that teams can be off the pace at the bottom end of things (Florida’s decade) then we must have room for the idea that some teams at the top are off the pace set by some of the others. How?

Personnel. By this I mean players as well as scouts and coaches.

Fitness. This may be leveling out, but I don’t think its level yet, amazing as that is to digest.

Tactics. It’s clear as day that some teams operate with different tactical priorities to others. I’d think that many tactics fluctuate in efficiency in this relative way.

Execution. Some players are innately more efficient at executing plays than others (personnel), but I think that some plays can be learned. Execution of plays is what people must be trying to influence with practice (or is that just for internet traffic?)

I think all these matter. I think all these can be conrolled in some way by the team and its organization. I think this is part of each game, albeit the part we don't see.


So if that's true, what has changed with these parameters in a week?

We’re kind of stuck on the personnel front, though Engqvist for Nokelainen did some good. Fitness isn’t something that can change overnight. Tactics and execution can be changed (Olivier pointed out the change in the way three forwards are attacking now vs. then). But it’s hard to see what really changed over a week.

One thing's for sure, trying to answer this question is not simple at all, and definitely produces answers that are hard to justify. It’s easy to see why people assume it’ll be a futile drilling exercise.


But maybe this is because we’re just asking the wrong question. Or maybe trying to answer the question by looking at the wrong data set.

After all, I don’t really need an answer that proves to me the Habs have some chance of winning after a loss. I’ve watched enough to know the odds aren’t nil.

Maybe when we ask what has made the Habs win this week, our fixation is not with the week, but rather what the week might tell us about our true concerns. As a group of fans that is hoping there are people in the Canadiens organization taking some actions to get a step ahead of rivals, aren’t we looking beyond October, November, 2011 anyway?

The ultimate question then, as it probably always should be until that future June night: “Is this team good enough to win the championship?”. And perhaps: “Does this stretch of 11 games tell us anything in that regard?”.

I can only answer for myself, but I’d say yes.

The good signs are there. The team is not allowing themselves to be wildly outshot or outchanced and mostly they are doing this by limiting good chances against. The team and its individual parts seem to be learning as they go.

But there are troubling signs too, not forgotten after a week. The team is rigid in its approach to offense. And without flexibility, they have had trouble when either teams figure that out or just get a big enough lead. The team’s strategy of choice for defending a lead seems to put them more at the mercy of luck than the teams who are defending their leads against the Habs (by that I mean puck concession is dangerously prone to bad bounces).

History will show that these flags aren’t really new. For years this has been the run-down on the Habs. Maybe that’s why my assessment hasn’t actually changed much since September. But this team doesn’t look in many ways to have changed very substantially from teams of Octobers past. Reasonable then to think that without adequate change in approach, change in results might not be drastic.

In a round-about way, I think I’ve argued that I think Sean Gordon (and even the they won because they won crew) was correct. I think those assessments were pretty dead on – for this team. The team is good enough to beat anyone on a given night, but flawed enough to lose as well.

But I’d disagree that this is the way for every team, so that all fans should just resign itself to this epic series of coin tosses. I’d disagree that none of the coins can be weighted. A team like Washington has rigged the game enough in my opinion to make their bets better than 50-50. Quite some margin better.

Take this opinion as you like, but I’d suggest to you that it’d be good news if it were proven fact. Because I tell you what Habs fans, if it’s all just averages, it don’t look good for this team which nabbed 24 Cups in 75 or so opportunities.

If Gomez Were Gomez Apologist

Today, we have a "revelation" of a headline following Dave Stubbs interview with Scott Gomez:

Montreal Canadiens' Scott Gomez looking to bounce back this season

The interview, which I think is sold short by the obvious headline, is very interesting and candid. The interview got me thinking about Scott Gomez.

Thank goodness for instance that Scott Gomez doesn't count himself among those who seem to believe that Scott Gomez didn't do anything wrong last season (or rather did almost everything he could have to help the Canadiens). Those who would rely on the ever equitable waters of luck lapping once more on his shooting blade.

"Normally, Gomez would have charted a path directly home to Alaska, where he enjoys his family and the great outdoors.

Not this summer. He headed to New York and after about one week off he returned to the gym with a personal trainer."

This isn't a guarantee of change, but it's a sign that Scott took action to back up his end of year apology for his form. It's a sign that he's doing what he can (it's unlikely he'll learn to shoot like Ovechkin in this lifetime) to improve in areas of the game where he can. Perhaps he'll get more space at the end of shifts from better fitness, perhaps he'll win a few more battles for position. That in turn may be all the help he and his line needs to turn what were a lot of errant shots into dangerous chances this year.

If Gomez were an apologist for himself like so many, he'd have taken the summer off. He'd be confident in the knowledge that even lifetime 7% shooters won't shoot 4.5% forever. That guys who put up a positive Corsi number should win because they score more goals (at 5:5). He'd rely on his salary to guarantee management wouldn't demote him and his baseline skill to perform the basic duties of a centre better than all but one other available option.

No, Gomez isn't an apologist. He took his apology and did something about not having to issue another one.

The coin flip of shooting luck may well be on his side. But it's good to know he's not counting on it.


Note: I have apologised on Gomez's behalf in the past, but always believed that it was the lack of talent surrounding him that led him to his dead-ends on so many nights. I believe strongly that the option of five wingers ahead of Moen will help, but also that if he ends up playing with Moen or whoever ends up filling the "Pyatt" role again, he'll be looking for that apology speech regardless of Corsi sorting itself out or not.

Taken for Granted

As the season closes in, I'm always amazed at the variable levels of optimism and pessimism from fans and reporters for their given teams. The Habs are no exception. If anything, the peaks and troughs seem higher and deeper in Montreal.

Overall, I'd have to say I am getting a vibe of general optimism form Habs fans these days. Despite a relatively quiet summer and little overall change to team make up, the Canadiens supporterate is upbeat.

So upbeat, in fact, that I am finding myself reading more often than not that the Canadiens have a baseline level from which they can only do better, and that baseline seems to be well within the playoff threshold by most accounts.

Every year this happens, not just with the Habs, but with all teams. Analysts take the past and use some imagination and rational projection to prognosticate on what will come about.

The issue I take with this approach is that it generally focuses far too heavily on the positive direction. In most schemes all young players progress, all career best years are only foundations for more career best years and few ever decline.

Progress it seems is taken for granted.

Rarely do I read that Erik Cole might have an Edmonton debacle as he did his only other time outside North Carolina. Few and far between are the reports of Gionta possibly dropping off or Plekanec slipping in offensive production. I don't think anyone has dared write that PK Subban might be susceptible to a sophomore setback that the vast majority of his peers are not immune to.

All I read is about Gomez having nowhere to go but up. Eller continuing to make strides and the like.

I just thought that for a true balance, we should probably have a look at what we all, honestly, are probably taking for granted this season:


1) Tomas Plekanec posting 20+ goals and at least 57 points

2) Carey Price providing top-10 NHL goaltending

3) Hal Gill not getting figured out by fast forwards

4) Brian Gionta in the higher 20s in goals

5) Max Pacioretty scoring at the rate he did on his curtailed streak

6) Markov and Subban clicking on the PP

7) Emelin, Diaz or whichever AHLer having few growing pains

8) Not missing Hamrlik

9) Cammalleri repeating playoff magic

10) Team morale staying high no matter what happens


I very much hope the team does well. Yet I don't take for granted this will happen. Every team has its surprises and every team suffers setbacks, no matter how good. It may not be one of the things I have listed above, but something on the Montreal Canadiens will go awry and decline from the idealized painting we have in the endless August prognostications.

I do still despite this balanced head find I have more hope than some years that the team will close the season with a few games in the 82 to spare.

I won't make a prediction on points or on placement, but I will predict this: we will have reasons to cheer and reasons to fret in 2011-12, and we will have to watch the games to see how this new group of 23 players will fare against the 29 other new groups of players.

Somewhere In Between: Habs Playoff Success

I am constantly amazed by the material I am able to find written about this edition of the Canadiens. Whether it be journalists who wrote off the team 6 times over the season and certainly after Game 4 in Washington pretending to have prophetic tendencies, fan-bloggers getting a little bit carried away with matters of the divine right and more than a little mixed up about historical events, or bitter rivals inventing frameworks that predict failure based on their limited viewing.

We (and by we I include you readers) have watched this team intently all season, seasons back. We have become familiar with what players are capable of, what is beyond their reach. We may not understand why the Habs ever win, or ever lose, but we are wise enough by now to know that we’ll probably never know.

It is why I take special offence with the extremities of the arguments both for and against this edition of the Habs. For the team, conveniently-postdated theories about Gainey’s prescience, Martin’s tactical genius and Montreal’s perfect mix are just as absurd as the curmudgeons who hang to the thread that luck has determined all and that luck is bounded by some beginning and some end.

I think we all try to find some sense here in our discussions, and I thank you all for that. Is it not then sensible to think that a combination of luck, skill, strategy and tenacity is what we just witnessed? That the combination found by the Canadiens was no more valid or invalid than the combination used by any of the three rivals set to battle for a place in the finals?


Smells of the Cup?

I used to be a big believer in destiny, in teams of destiny. Yes, I was once twelve.

Nowadays, every time I catch an RDS post-game with scenes of newly-minted fans screaming that the stars are aligned, I cringe. While I have come to accept that Montreal is a city full of manic depressive sports followers all gagging for the chance to wear a winner’s sweater, it is the misinterpretation of history that I frown upon more.

“Feels like 93” is perhaps the most hollow statement made by Habs fans these days. What does this mean? It is overused to the extreme, not only after playoff qualification, but in November, January and even August. To some, every year feels like 1993. It leads me to believe that few actually remember what 1993 was like at all. Why 93 anyway? Why not 65 or 73?

When the more thoughtful get involved, you’d think it would get better but it doesn’t. Many also dabble in the mythology of 1993. But not the real story, more the one that’s been rewritten to fit the current circumstance. Always the implication that 1993, 1986, these were somehow underserved Cups, that were it not for some celestial redirections goals would have been misses and misses against goals. I’ve written before on what a dis-service I think this is to the teams of those eras, chock full of all-stars and playoff successes both before and after these triumphs.

1993 felt a lot to different to me. After vanquishing the Nordiques, remember taking the Sabres very lightly, celebrating more for an Islanders win against Pittsburgh than any Habs win in Long Island and thinking the final could go any which way. This year feels nothing like that, except that I didn’t know we’d win the Cup until Game #5 of the Stanley Cup finals, and I don’t know anything of Cup winner now either.

Hockey is not a game of destiny. Though we talk of conspiracies, we’re aware of how impossible they would be to carry through. The playoffs are a tough slog. Winning 4 games against the same opponent in two weeks is hard work, particularly if they have talent. Hard work, commitment to playing as a team and flashes of skill all play a much more significant part than destiny.


The Luck Will Run Out

While the euphoric parade aluminum foil around the city, those who hate the Canadiens are having a parade of their own. A parade of cynicism.

As Sidney Crosby sat there in disbelief after Game 7, citing his theory that the Canadiens strategy was not a workable one (should the Pens then be virtual champs?), acolytes of the same sorts of theories did the same. While foil Cups and pretenses at prophecy make me cringe, the statisticians are making me chuckle.

Corsi-backers, whose material at the moment is so cockeyed I won’t even bother to link, are heading a column. No less than 10 posts have been made on certain sites the Montreal Canadiens, their luck and the prediction that it will al run out.

I know there’s been luck. I understand probabilities. But clearly I’ve been out of it for a while, because I must have missed the part where the stats grinders showed me the incontrovertible proof that they can show where luck begins and ends. I was still of the illusion that a coin flip has a 50% chance of being heads or tails, regardless of what the previous coin flip showed, what the previous hundred thousand showed. I didn’t know that Halak’s save percentage in one series dictated what it will be in the first period of game one of the next.

Most offensive here is the way those who follow their lovable stat with blinders call others deluded in the face of the data. Had they spilled an ounce of effort to employ real scientific curiosity as to the validity of Jacques Martin’s new (and most counterintuitive) model of hockey, then perhaps their dismissals would hold some weight. Instead they wait for the die to fall on seven without checking if they are weighted in any way.

It is the arrogance of the critics that puts me off. How they dismiss Halak as lucky. How they dismiss the Canadiens run as a dead end. How they bundle the Gionta goal at the end of Game 7 into the same shot category as the Orpik shot from the blueline. Just because one may not be able to come up with an adequate explanation for the way things are just yet does not mean that the only alternative is by default infallible. Maybe they should ask Lamarck about that, or any real scientist in the history of time, for that matter.


In between land

As I’ve said many times, I’d like to be able to put a finger on the reason for wins, to attribute points no one could dispute to our players and theirs for how things went. It’s complex, I can’t do that at the moment.

I know from watching that there’s been luck. Lots of luck. Luck that opponents haven’t found rebounds quickly enough, luck that the net isn’t an inch wider, luck that shots go in for the good guys.

I also know that there’s been skill too. Cammalleri scoring, for example. If anyone else had been in the position to have puck hit their knee, they’d probably not be noted as goalscorer on the play. Cammalleri has certain skills, and hand-eye coordination is near top the list.

And strategy. I know it’s highly counterintuitive that allowing shots will work. But the fact that it has should arouse curiosity rather than immediate blinders. Remember that in 1993 most would have laughed Swedish coaching of the trap right out of the room.

The answer is probably in between luck and skill. In between probability and strategy.

But I’ll tell you this as well. No part of the analysis, half-baked or not, tells us one iota of what might happen next week. Predicting the future is a carnival trick – make enough predictions and one will be right. The Habs have ample chance to win Game 1, the series and whatever else. While it would seem likely they’ll be deploying the tactics that work, there’s nothing to say the team won’t simply pack up that tent and find a new strategy. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s over one way or the other. The games are played for that reason. Accept it and enjoy.


The team is wiser

Thankfully, I watch the interviews and I can see all of this is understood by those players. Thankfully, I think that these players have the sense to know they’ve found something that works, but also the experience to know they’ve enjoyed some luck. Thankfully, they are not the one-dimensional adherents to the theory that shots released from the stick, if provided in enough volume, will always prevail.

These Habs have been coached well not only in back-checking and counterattack, but also in grounding. They know that luck received must be appreciated, but never expected, and that hard work doesn’t always pay off.

Most importantly, they seem to have learned that the future is unclear, that a conference final in hand is better than two, three or ten in the bush.

I have to say, in light of all the rest, their good sense makes them even more intriguing to watch.

Get Gainey The Heart of GoldEven Bistromath Can't Save Us Now

Here's a synopsis for you from Arpon Basu's CP work:

The Montreal Canadiens feel they have to move mountains just to get a goal, while the Boston Bruins are having goals fall in their laps.

You can read this two ways (clever man that Arpon). For one thing the Canadiens believe the Bruins got lucky. For another, they think the Bruins have a pretty proficient goaltender (with the obvious juxtaposition).

It's not a quote, it's a synopsis, so are we putting words in the Habs players' own mouths? I don't think so. The implication of real quotes like these:

Saku Koivu: "... they got their second goal (early in the second period) basically out of nowhere."

Bob Gainey on the first goal: "It did feel like a punch to the midsection.

They were clear in pointing to luck on the first goal, but is it not coded that their own lucky bounces were saved, the Bruins' were not. Our shots gave no rebounds, theirs were delivered straight onto sticks.


No goalie can save us now

That ship sailed a few hours ago. Carey can't be expected to, nor can Jaro now. You know we're quick to point out that Halak is better than Price here, and I think we have convinced most of you by now (rather the two of them have). But we seldom mention one main reason Price plays is because Halak is not that much better. Had he come in with a few shutouts and pulled a Steve Mason, or even a Chris Mason 2007, he'd be in right now. He's sidelined because he too has made life for the forwards very very difficult since December. Whatever you think of either of the two men, I don't think anyone at this point can realistically hope that #31 or #41 will pull 4 games out of the bag now.


Hence, luck.


The good news is they've been hoarding their pills since the Jason Blake and Garbageski hits. The bad news is that the team now needs more than a little helping – they need the maximum-allowable dose. This all sounds very familiar to me, sort of like being rescued when suffocating in deep space... The Infinite Improbability Drive is surely about to kick in, isn't it?

You see that way:

"Any event that is infinitely improbable [such as winning a game in April this year] will, by definition, occur almost immediately."

After all, the Canadiens need nothing less than Markov. They could use Lang, Schneider and Tanguay too. They need Carey Price to get his hand slammed in a car door. They need the referees to simultaneously drop their whistles to the ice when Thomas half controls the puck. They need Bruins high sticks to draw blood. They need Chara to make an error, maybe three. They need Marc Savard to think he's back in Atlanta. They need Laraque to ask to sit out.

All possible, if unlikely on their own. But together my friends, that's infinite improbability staring us right in the face.

Gosh, I knew these 4-2 scorelines were trying to tell us something. What's more, wouldn't Carey Price make a good Chesterfield? It'd certainly be easy to get the vacuum around and behind it. Might look good under some warm red lighting...


So for Wednesday, don't panic. But, do bring a towel.


[Apologies to those of you who were not as smitten with Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as I was...]

To Be LuckyDown, Out And Coming Back

On the eve of a very important night of map colouring, I consider the topic of comebacks. John McCain thinks he has what it takes to mount a comeback today. Maybe he does. I was wondering what you thought it took to be capable of coming back from down and out situations.

Here is what I think:

1. You have to be lucky to be good
This weekend the Canadiens treated us all to a wonderful comeback victory to warm the cockles of our hearts (documented in fine fashion by Tobalev). Though I wholeheartedly agree that the Habs should be happy with their comeback (why not, indeed?), I also wanted to highlight the turn in fortunes they experienced and the part it played in making that win happen.

The Canadiens were lucky DiPietro was injured allowing them to face Yann Danis. They were lucky the Islanders management weren't the Flyers management, otherwise they'd have been facing Khabibulin. They were lucky the team on the island has neglected to develop a defenceman in the past 10 years. They were lucky to be facing a rookie coach who flapped and flailed at every testing moment. Basically, the Habs were lucky that they were facing the Islanders, as Kovalev pointed out.

But even within the game, they were lucky that the breakdown happened when it did. 8 minutes is enough to recover from a 2-goal deficit. Is 6 enough in a team's mind? Danis had been good over 50 minutes, and suddenly let in 4 goals on not many more shots. Timing was fortuitous there.

Luck has been a common theme for the early run of the Canadiens. They played a dangerous game of penalty kill get another penalty in Minnesota – lucky not to be facing their main goal threat. They have been outplayed to win on several occasions.

As the common wisdom goes, you have to be lucky to be good. Especially when good will be judged some time next year (as it was this spring) by how many points the team has in the standings, how many points a player has on the stats sheet. No one will care that the Canadiens fluked out 4 victories in October, come April. No one will question those 8 points. It'll be all they "found ways to win" all season and the like.

My advice if you want to comeback from 4-1 down in the last 8 minutes – be lucky...


2. You have to good to be lucky
The much more useful (and sage) side of the advice goes that you have to be good to be lucky. It is more pertinent to know this, because if you think there is nothing you can do to change luck, you're wrong – get better.

The second comeback of the weekend inspired one to think about being good to be lucky. With the evil forces of Ferrari teetering ever so close to a driver's championship on Sunday, it was young Brit Lewis Hamilton who played the comeback role here.

Going into the final laps of the race, it looked like all Lewis would have to do would be to keep his car on the racetrack. The weather gods had other ideas. With rain, came the critical decision to change from dry tires to intermediate tires for grip. The decision was a risk, because Hamilton and his crew did not know whether a) the rain would be strong enough to warrant the tires and b) whether the drivers behind them (those they were actually racing) would also pit.

On the day, there was a final piece of good work to enable their luck later, McLaren had a clean and quick pit stop. Hamilton, critically, got back on the track ahead of the danger car of Jarno Trulli (then in 7th) and the car directly behind him in the pits, Vettel (in 6th).

What came later was an overtake from Vettel (to put Hamilton into 6th – one place too low to win the title) and a very last minute pass of Timo Glock who never put on the intermediate tires n the rain. Lewis benefited from a slew of luck in those moments (no matter what the strategists say). It came right down to the intensity of the precipitation!

But although Lewis Hamilton came 5th and not 6th in Sunday's GP because of luck (of that there's little doubt), he was in a position to win the driver's championship on the back of a great season – he was good. (That being said, there was another good driver in this story, who had he won, would have deserved his luck just as much – Felipe Massa). It would be a mistake to think that either won or lost because of luck alone.

Likewise the Canadiens of the previous night, with good passes, good shots and good control, made it possible for themselves to take advantage of a suddenly shaky Isles defence and third-stringer.

My advice to anyone who thinks they need more lucky bounces – get to work...


How do you separate good from lucky?
With difficulty. But it's not even necessary.

If you trust in the wisdom, you will know that every good team is lucky and every lucky team is good. Games are 60 minutes long, playoff series best-of-seven, and seasons 82 games to take care of that.

If think the Canadiens of the past were unlucky to lose games after losing Patrick Roy (like I used to), consider that they were not well-managed enough to have a plan B in place. If you think the 1993 Canadiens were lucky to be Cup winners against LA (I never thought that!), consider it was also because they were good enough to beat the red-hot Nordiques in the first round.

The 8-1-1 Canadiens are a good team because they put themselves in positions to take advantage of lucky situations when they come along. They have plan Bs. They have flexibility. They are now a lucky team put together by lots of hard work – one that is now in a position to take advantage of many lucky scenarios if ever and whenever they arise.

I've been waiting for this luck for a long time. Arranged shirts and memorabilia in precise ways. Turned on the TV at the right times, off at the right times. Not spoken a wrong word during games for years. Finally, I'm starting to get the feeling that I can relax, that luck will take care of itself, that the team will take care of some of that for me, that Gainey already has.

It's a long way to go yet, but I have to say I'm really enjoying the luck right now.